Now is the time for Pelini to finally do this . . .

[Eagle1]

A lot of subbing is left up to positions coaches. Coach P. has some say but position coaches for the most part have final say. Now, that may not be what is portrayed publicly but it is what happens. Unfortunately we have at least one position coach who has said out loud and in front of players that he hates walk ons and they should not play, regardless of position on the depth chart. I would guess because some of those walk ons have out performed his recruited players and he doesn't like it.

 

Who said this, and do you have a link to the source?

 

You really think a link exists for this? Most likely 2nd hand from player

 

No, I don't really think a link exists because I don't think it was actually said. And yeah, most likely second hand from a player who has an overinflated opinion of himself.

As I said, there would be some that discredit, that's fine, you have that right. But don't assume you know anything. Like it or not, you don't know EVERYTHING that goes on in the program, and neither do I. But I can tell you it is true, it has happened. And to satisfy your curiosity, it wasn't information from a player. Players are tight lipped so they don't jeopardize themselves. But you are free to think what you want.

 

This is another time when a poster needs to understand how to relay information. Did one of the assistants day that? Perhaps. But unless you heard it with your own ears, you can't say that's it's true and definitely happened.

Listen, I've posted stuff I've heard, things said, rumors, etc. But I'm not going to insist that it's true and get all huffy when someone questions me about it. This is the interwebs where everything you see is true, right?

 

 

1. I dont see how you take what i said as getting huffy? Got some thin skin there? I fully expected some to question and even went as far as to say id understand if they did.

2. Have you not figured out how much politics there are in college sports? Just as in politics where there's smoke there's fire and not everything is released to the media and sometimes sources are kept anonymous. Unfortunately politics some times get in the way of progress. Get to know someone deeply involved with college sports and discuss it sometime. You'd be surprised of what goes on at all levels.

3. I made my post as an answer to a question

4. There are times when there are connections that not everyone has or as in my case accidentally happened upon. Sometimes the connections leak information. I dont like rumors, and would not have posted what i did if it wasn't credible.

5. You have the right to speculate. I will resist further comment.

6. Maybe im the mole?

[Scratchtown]

A lot of subbing is left up to positions coaches. Coach P. has some say but position coaches for the most part have final say. Now, that may not be what is portrayed publicly but it is what happens. Unfortunately we have at least one position coach who has said out loud and in front of players that he hates walk ons and they should not play, regardless of position on the depth chart. I would guess because some of those walk ons have out performed his recruited players and he doesn't like it.

 

Who said this, and do you have a link to the source?

 

You really think a link exists for this? Most likely 2nd hand from player

 

No, I don't really think a link exists because I don't think it was actually said. And yeah, most likely second hand from a player who has an overinflated opinion of himself.

As I said, there would be some that discredit, that's fine, you have that right. But don't assume you know anything. Like it or not, you don't know EVERYTHING that goes on in the program, and neither do I. But I can tell you it is true, it has happened. And to satisfy your curiosity, it wasn't information from a player. Players are tight lipped so they don't jeopardize themselves. But you are free to think what you want.

 

This is another time when a poster needs to understand how to relay information. Did one of the assistants day that? Perhaps. But unless you heard it with your own ears, you can't say that's it's true and definitely happened.

Listen, I've posted stuff I've heard, things said, rumors, etc. But I'm not going to insist that it's true and get all huffy when someone questions me about it. This is the interwebs where everything you see is true, right?

 

Again, some need to understand the concept of repercussions when sources get disclosed. It's called respect and decency. I would think our mods to a good job of weeding out trolls. We all kind of know who is credible and who isn't. I don't think this is a case of someone just making bs up.

 

If they are shame on them.

[Enhance]

 

 

 

The way to win is to take out your best players and insert players that aren't as good? Ive now heard it all...

What's better: A guy who only has 70% strength, or, a guy with 100% strength? Simple as that. Also, the drop off between ones and twos is minimal at most positions. Putting the ones on the sideline will make them want to get back in the game that much more.

 

I was watching Baylor's comeback over TCU the other day. During the entire 4th quarter, Baylor lit up TCU's defense as if Kevin Cosgrove was coaching them. It was 100% apparent that TCU had ZERO CHANCE in stopping Baylor. At that juncture, why not put the backups in? Guys on the bench have tons of attitude and can help change a game. Heck, look at Gangrich. First two games Randy Gregory was out, the guy played lights out. Since then, he's basically not seen the field. Are you telling me he has nothing to add to the game?

 

Same goes for the O-Line. If we rotate 8 or 10, that's 8 or 10 hungry, fresh bodies. It works early in the season, why not continue the pattern?

I don't think you can blanket statement that a 70% strength player isn't as good as a 100% player, and call it that "simple." It's nowhere near that simple. There's a reason you play your best players the vast majority of the game, and it should go without saying - they're more likely to make big plays for you and be more consistent.

 

Using your own example, Randy Gregory. Gregory is very likely a future first round NFL draft pick, potentially, even Top 10. You want that dude on the sideline because he's a little tired and perhaps not as fresh as a back-up? Giving a guy a breather is one thing, but I'd MUCH rather have Gregory on the field than sitting off to the sidelines for a couple series.

 

This isn't 1995 anymore. We don't have the kind of depth, coaching or system here that we once did.

It would be nice to not have to rely on your #1's to take every snap of every game. Towards the end on the year, that wear and tear can get really ugly.

 

See Rex in 2011, Ameer in 2012, and our defense in the B1G CCG.

 

I follow a couple other college football teams pretty closely outside of the Huskers, and I don't see them doing anything significantly different than what we do on Saturdays in terms of substitutions. You want your playmakers on the field as much as possible. And yes, while playing time is great experience for backups, coaches have to find a balance between giving them reps but also ensuring their best players are in a position to make a play.

 

Mainly, I think the premise of this thread is off base. Pelini does rotate guys, and regularly, if one actually pay attention. It seems we're debating how much PT backups should get, and it's just unrealistic to expect a lot of backups to see PT when games are within a couple scores. Or, if you're down on the scoreboard.

 

If someone is going to argue Pelini needs to rotate guys more, though, don't use Randy Gregory as your prime example. It's pretty obvious your potential first round draft pick is going to see A LOT of playing time, just as it's pretty obvious Ndamukong Suh was going to see A LOT of playing time when he was here.

[NUinID]

Back during Nebraska's run in the mid 90's the offensive and defensive lines generally rotated 2 series for the #1s and then 1 series for the #2s. That was possible when your #2s were almost as good as the #1s. But that was a luxury. When they got into a tight game like MSU you didn't see nearly as much rotating. Watch the 94 OB, you won't see too much rotating in that game on the lines.

[Bowfin]

Nope. I want every starting player to get a chance to get injured when the game has already been decided. If they don't get injured, then I want them to play the maximum amount to get as much wear and tear on them during the season.

 

No game experience for the second or third stringers because they won't need it. It's not like it is even remotely possible we would have three or four guys in the same position all down or missing in any given game (say...oh, like maybe receivers?) and have to rely on a couple of third or fourth stringers to run a pick route to win a game that would give us clear sailing to the conference championship game, so why let them in to get some experience for when that time that won't ever come?

 

Several times, Bo has said after a mid season loss that getting guys up to their potential and learning what to do "is a process". Great, we will have everybody coached up and finished at the end of the season of their senior year. The problem is, we need people ready to go THIS week, or NEXT week, or especially LAST WEEK. One way of doing that is getting guys on the field to get experience and guys off the field to get some coaching or communication. Get little Pelini off the field for a play or two to talk to Garrison and Coach Pelini about Michigan State clapping and jumping the snap while he gets his breath and the other guy gets some experience.

 

Ahman Green got meaningful snaps when he was behind Lawrence Phillips, and Jason Peters remarked that there was no rotation of the defensive line men in the Michigan State game, as if he were surprised. I watched part of the 1995 Oklahoma game last night and both of the Peter brothers were pulled for one or two play IN THE FIRST QUARTER to get a breath and talk to the coaches and each other. Backup I-back Jeff Smith got the pitch on 4th and 8 in the 1984 Orange Bowl and took it into the end zone, but he had 143 touches as a backup BEFORE he did that.

 

So yeah, play the backups more.

[HuskerinSunDiego]

Nope. I want every starting player to get a chance to get injured when the game has already been decided. If they don't get injured, then I want them to play the maximum amount to get as much wear and tear on them during the season.

 

No game experience for the second or third stringers because they won't need it. It's not like it is even remotely possible we would have three or four guys in the same position all down or missing in any given game (say...oh, like maybe receivers?) and have to rely on a couple of third or fourth stringers to run a pick route to win a game that would give us clear sailing to the conference championship game, so why let them in to get some experience for when that time that won't ever come?

 

Several times, Bo has said after a mid season loss that getting guys up to their potential and learning what to do "is a process". Great, we will have everybody coached up and finished at the end of the season of their senior year. The problem is, we need people ready to go THIS week, or NEXT week, or especially LAST WEEK. One way of doing that is getting guys on the field to get experience and guys off the field to get some coaching or communication. Get little Pelini off the field for a play or two to talk to Garrison and Coach Pelini about Michigan State clapping and jumping the snap while he gets his breath and the other guy gets some experience.

 

Ahman Green got meaningful snaps when he was behind Lawrence Phillips, and Jason Peters remarked that there was no rotation of the defensive line men in the Michigan State game, as if he were surprised. I watched part of the 1995 Oklahoma game last night and both of the Peter brothers were pulled for one or two play IN THE FIRST QUARTER to get a breath and talk to the coaches and each other. Backup I-back Jeff Smith got the pitch on 4th and 8 in the 1984 Orange Bowl and took it into the end zone, but he had 143 touches as a backup BEFORE he did that.

 

So yeah, play the backups more.

Best comments that I have read on this website this year.

[I am I]

In the 80s and 90s we had 100 schollies. Now we have 85.

15 more players that were starting material on other teams now.

We had unlimited amt of GA's who could coach over 120 players. That's how they got "coached up". Now we have fewer coaches, fewer players, fewer hours to practice, fewer scholly players as quality backups--and the competition is tougher because of said scholarship limits spread the talent around.

The backups aren't as good as the starters, PERIOD.

 

I think Pelini needs to play the backups more in blowout wins/losses, but if we aren't up by 21-28 points comfortably, then you play the starters.

[admo]

 

Nope. I want every starting player to get a chance to get injured when the game has already been decided. If they don't get injured, then I want them to play the maximum amount to get as much wear and tear on them during the season.

 

No game experience for the second or third stringers because they won't need it. It's not like it is even remotely possible we would have three or four guys in the same position all down or missing in any given game (say...oh, like maybe receivers?) and have to rely on a couple of third or fourth stringers to run a pick route to win a game that would give us clear sailing to the conference championship game, so why let them in to get some experience for when that time that won't ever come?

 

Several times, Bo has said after a mid season loss that getting guys up to their potential and learning what to do "is a process". Great, we will have everybody coached up and finished at the end of the season of their senior year. The problem is, we need people ready to go THIS week, or NEXT week, or especially LAST WEEK. One way of doing that is getting guys on the field to get experience and guys off the field to get some coaching or communication. Get little Pelini off the field for a play or two to talk to Garrison and Coach Pelini about Michigan State clapping and jumping the snap while he gets his breath and the other guy gets some experience.

 

Ahman Green got meaningful snaps when he was behind Lawrence Phillips, and Jason Peters remarked that there was no rotation of the defensive line men in the Michigan State game, as if he were surprised. I watched part of the 1995 Oklahoma game last night and both of the Peter brothers were pulled for one or two play IN THE FIRST QUARTER to get a breath and talk to the coaches and each other. Backup I-back Jeff Smith got the pitch on 4th and 8 in the 1984 Orange Bowl and took it into the end zone, but he had 143 touches as a backup BEFORE he did that.

 

So yeah, play the backups more.

Best comments that I have read on this website this year.

 

You've only been reading for a couple years.

[Count 'Bility]

In the 80s and 90s we had 100 schollies. Now we have 85.

15 more players that were starting material on other teams now.

We had unlimited amt of GA's who could coach over 120 players. That's how they got "coached up". Now we have fewer coaches, fewer players, fewer hours to practice, fewer scholly players as quality backups--and the competition is tougher because of said scholarship limits spread the talent around.

The backups aren't as good as the starters, PERIOD.

 

I think Pelini needs to play the backups more in blowout wins/losses, but if we aren't up by 21-28 points comfortably, then you play the starters.

Baylor just came back from 21 down in under 8 minutes, against a top 10 teams. even a lead that big is not safe. But in agreement with you on that number, it's also more about the opponent and situation. But still, in this day and age of football, 3-4 td leads are not nearly as safe as they were years back until you get into the real late stages of the game.

[The Dude]

I wouldnt be comfortable with a 21 point 4th quarter lead against Baylor('s offense). The rest of the teams on our schedule, on the other hand . . .

[Count 'Bility]

I wouldnt be comfortable with a 21 point 4th quarter lead against Baylor('s offense). The rest of the teams on our schedule, on the other hand . . .

Wonder what Michigan St thought?

[The Dude]

 

 

I wouldnt be comfortable with a 21 point 4th quarter lead against Baylor('s offense). The rest of the teams on our schedule, on the other hand . . .

Wonder what Michigan St thought?

Are you saying our offense is as bad as Purdue, Iowa, ect..?

 

I guess until Michigan State went into "prevent" defense it kinda

[LJsurf41]

 

 

Dude, TCU gave up 61 points and you'd advocate keeping their starters on defense in? I don't think even Kevin Cosgrove would advocate that.

 

This is the Big12 you're talking about here. And our defenses have given up 60+ more than once and people still advocate for JP to keep his job.

 

61 points is 61 points. At what point do you advocate a change, 100 points? Come on.

 

 

I'm pretty sure if TCU puts in the backups it's 261 points instead of just 61...BU scores on everyone. This thread is a joke. Bo has a decent track record of getting backups and younger players gametime, especially during the bowl games to help younger players get ready for the next season. Our first priority is to win games on a week by week basis/focus. If we get a comfortable lead, fine play some backups/2nd/3rd stringers to get some game experience. I agree with the above poster about certain positions that should NOT be rotated, namely the OL where rhythm and experience are vital to success. Lock this POS thread already...